S. HOVITO CHOPHY Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, who was initially appointed on ad -hoc basis as Overseer Grade -I along with respondents No. 5 to 20 and was subsequently regularized by regular process of selection undertaken by the Nagaland Public Service Commission, has approached this court challenging officiating promotions granted to respondents No. 5 to 20 on various dates during the period from 2002 -2013 superseding the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Diploma Engineer in Civil Engineering. He was appointed as Overseer Grade -I on 16.07.1994 on ad -hoc basis. Subsequently pursuant to advertisement issued by the Nagaland Public Service Commission he appeared before the authority and thereupon he was selected. On the basis of such selection, the service of the petitioner was regularized vide Office Order dated 23.03.1996 along with 175 others. His regularization was made with effect from his initial date of joining as was done to other similarly situated candidates. The Overseer Grade -I staffs working under P.W.D. were re - designated as Junior Engineers by Letter dated 13.03.1997. Thereafter the Government issued an Office Memorandum on 24.01.2012 for the first time, declaring tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers under N.P.W.D. as on 01.09.2011 and in that list name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 131. The name of respondent No. 5 did not figure in the said list as he was not working as Junior Engineer as on the cut -off date of 01.09.2011. Respondents No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are all juniors to the petitioner and their names were shown at serial Nos. 143, 164, 201, 141, 145, 136, 139, 151, 157, 161, 162,174, 176, 177 and 189 respectively as their dates of initial appointment fell much later than that of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 5 entered service as Junior Engineer after the petitioner. Although respondent No. 5 has been described as junior to the petitioner, but the writ petitioner has failed to furnish the date of initial appointment of the said respondent No. 5 and thus claim of the petitioner of being senior to the respondent No. 5 remains unsubstantiated.

(3.) DID not consider the entitlement of the petitioner despite repeated representations. Except respondent No. 6 no other respondent has put up appearance in this writ petition despite service of notice. Affidavit -in -opposition has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 6 has also filed an affidavit -in -opposition. In the affidavit -in -opposition of the respondent No. 6 stand has been taken that being aggrieved at his supersession by juniors he had earlier approached this court vide WP(C) No. 62(K)/2009. In that writ petition the petitioner challenged officiating promotions of as many as 5 (five) private respondents. Out of the aforesaid 5 (five) private respondents it is stated at the Bar that respondent No. 3 has expired and the remaining 4 (four) private respondents, namely, respondents No.